Time, Inc v. Firestone
Synopsis §1.1 Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 488 (1976)
§1.2 Time, Inc. claims that the Florida state court's $100,000 ruling in favor of Mary Firestone violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
§1.3 Time, Inc. reported on the divorce proceedings of Mary and Russell Firestone, but Mary Firestone claims that the report was false and defamatory. Mary requested a retraction, which was refused, and then filed a libel suit against the Time’s. The court ruled in Firestone’s favor, but the Time’s appealed the case, claiming that the ruling was a violation of their constitutional rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
§1.4 The Court largely looks at the Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279 (1971), Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (1972), and Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 770.01-770.02 (1963) when arguing its majority, dissenting, and concurring opinions.
§1.5 The Court’s majority opinion held that the actual malice standard, set in place by, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), did not apply to this case because Mary Firestone was not considered a public figure, as defined in prior precedents such as Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc.,418 U.S. 323 (1974) and Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967). The Court also held that the Florida court’s judgment in favor of Firestone was invalid because the court awarded damages without determining fault, which was a requirement when providing monetary awards in libel cases.
§1.6 In a 6-2 vote, the Court’s majority opinion held that the actual malice standard for media reporting on public figures did not apply to this case and that the Florida court’s judgment in favor of Firestone was invalid because the court awarded damages without determining fault.
§1.7 The Court’s second dissenting opinion is rhetorically stronger than the other opinions due to its examination of Mary Firestone which concludes that, based on the defintions from Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) and Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), she is a public figure. This effectively contradicts what the Court’s majority opinion stated about Mrs. Firestone, and is backed up with sufficient evidence to prove why this conclusion was made.
Explanation
§1.1.1 Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 488 (1976)
§1.2.1 Mary Firestone filed a libel suit against Time, Inc, claiming that the article they published was false, malicious, and defamatory. A Florida state court ruled in Firestone’s favor, granting her $100,000 in damages. Time, Inc. appealed this decision in the Supreme Court, claiming that the Florida state court’s ruling was unconstitutional and violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States of America.
§1.3.1 Mary Firestone was married to Russell Firestone Jr., an heir to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company family fortune. Mary filed for divorce, to which Russell submitted a counterclaim for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and adultery. The judge granted the divorce, but discounted most of the evidence and testimonies regarding the extramarital affairs, declaring them as unreliable. The judge stated that “It is the conclusion of the court that neither party is domesticated within the meaning of that term as used by the Supreme Court of Florida...In the present case, it is abundantly clear from the evidence of marital discord that neither of the parties has shown the least susceptibility to domestication, and that the marriage should be dissolved.” The editorial staff of Time, Inc. heard about the judge’s rulings on the Firestone’s divorce proceedings in four ways: 1) via a wire service report; 2) an account of it in a New York newspaper; 3) from the Miami bureau chief of Time, Inc; and 4) from a stringer working on a special assignment in the Palm Beach area. Based on their four sources, the editorial staff of Time, Inc. composed an article, mentioning the alleged affairs, that appeared in the magazine’s Milestones section. The Firestones’ divorce was published in Time, Inc. as follows: “DIVORCED. Bt Russel A. Firestone Jr., 41, heir to thetire fortune: Mary Alice Sullivan Firestone, 32, his third wife; a one time Palm Beach school teacher; on grounds of extreme cruelty and adultery; after six years of marriage, one son; in West Palm Beach, Fla. The 17-month intermittent trial produced enough testimony of extramarital adventures on both sides, said the judge, ‘to make Dr. Freud’s hair curl.’” After the article was published, Mary Firestone requested a retraction based on a portion of the article being “false, malicious, and defamatory.” However, Time, Inc. refused Firestone’s request. Firestone then filed a libel suit against Time, Inc in a Florida state court, seeking $100,000 in damages for libel, which was granted to Firestone by the circuit court. Time, Inc. claims that his judgment violated tis rights that are guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Time, Inc. claims that it cannot be found liable for publishing any falsehood defamation. In this case, the respondent is Mary Alice Firestone and the petitioner is the publisher of Time, Inc., a weekly news magazine.
§1.4.1 First Amendment
§1.4.1.1 This guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, the right to petition, the right to assemble peacefully, and the right to petition the government. It prohibits Congress from 1) promoting one religion over others; 2) restricting an individual’s religious practices; and 3) restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely
§1.4.2 Fourteenth Amendment
§1.4.2.1 This states that no state shall make/enforce any law that will abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
§1.4.3 Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279 (1971)
§1.4.3.1 This is about the Time, Inc. publishing an article which extensively quotes a report made by the Civil Rights Commission on police brutality that made allegations (without ever explicitly stating that they were allegations) about how Detective Pape and other officers broke into the Monroe apartment, assaulted the Monroes, and took Mr. Monroe to the police station where he was held for ten hours without being charged or advised of his rights. Pape sued Time, Ic. for libel in district court, which Time, Inc. moved for dismissal. The district court granted Time, Inc.’s motion, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case. Similar to Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), the Supreme Court ruled on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) before ruling on this case. The decision made in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) became the basis for the district court granting summary judgment for Time, Inc. The Court of Appeals reversed this again, and held that a jury must decide whether actual malice was present. After the third trial, the district court granted Time, Inc.’s motion for a directed verdict. The Court of Appeals reversed for a third time and held that the issue of actual malice was one for the jury to decide. In an 8-1 majority, the Court held that the Time, Inc. article was reporting on the Commission’s description of the allegations Monroe made against Pape, of which there was no inherent truth value. The Court argued that by not including the word “alleged” or a synonym, Time, Inc. adopted one of multiple available interpretations, which is not enough to create a jury issue of “malice” under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The Court held that the Time article reflected an error in judgment, not a reckless disregard of the truth, and the statements are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
§1.4.4 Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) & Associated Press v. Walker, 389 U.S. 28 (1967)
§1.4.4.1 This was two different vases that concern libel as it pertains to public figures who are not public officials. The first case (Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967)) was about an article that was published in an edition of The Saturday Evening Post. This article alleged that a former University of Georgia football coach, Wallace Butts, conspired with the University of Alabama coach Paul “Bear” Bryant to fix a 1962 football game in Alabama’s favor. The article’s source was George Burnett, an Atlanta insurance salesman who allegedly overheard a conversation between the two coaches via telephone. Butts filed and won a libel suit against Curtis Publishing (the owner of The Saturday Evening Post). After the ruling of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Curtis Publishing Company moved for a new trial, which was rejected because Butts was not a public official. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the previous decision on the basis that Curtis had waived any constitutional challenges by not raising such questions at trial.
§1.4.4.2 The second case (Associated Press v. Walker, 389 U.S. 28 (1967)) was about dispatch reports of rioting that occured on the campus of the University of Mississippi on September 30, 1963. The dispatches reported that Edwin A. Walker, a private citizen/political activist, had personally led a violent crowd attempting to prevent federal marshals from enforcing a court ordered enrollment of an African American. Walker denied these reports and filed a libel suit in the state courts of Texas. A judge ruled in Walker’s favor but refused to award him punitive damages because there was no malicious intent, and specifically stated that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) was inapplicable in this case. On appeal, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals agreed with the prior ruling, and the Supreme Court of Texas declined to hear the case.
§1.4.4.3 Ina 5-4 decision, the Court noted how the circumstances of these cases were different than those of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The Court reasoned that public figures who are not public officials may recover damages from libel stemming from false reports based on “highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.” The Court also concluded that Curtis’ investigation of its allegations against Butts failed to meet this standard. The company printed a questionably reliable source’s allegations without any attempt to verify his claims, and the story in question was not a pressing event or immediately newsworthy. The Court thus affirmed the lower courts' denial of a retrial. However, with the allegations against Walker, the AP relied on a correspondent on the scene of an event that was immediately newsworthy. The Court thus denied Walker's claims to damages.
§1.4.5 Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
§1.4.5.1 This was about an article in the American Opinion magazine. In the article, the John Birch society accused Gertz of being a “Leninist” and a “Communicist-fronter” because he chose to represent the family who were suing a law enforcement officer that had killed their son. Gertz won a jury verdict and an award for $50,000, but he lost his libel suit because the magazine had not violated the actual malice test for libel that was established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and held that Gertz’s rights had been violated. A new trial occurred, where it was argued that the actual malice test was inapplicable in this case because Gertz was neither a public official nor a public figure. The Court’s majority opinion also argued that ordinary citizens should be allowed more protections from libelous statements than individuals in the public eye.
§1.4.6 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
§1.4.6.1 During the Civil Rights movement, the New York Times published an ad for contributing donations to defend Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. on perjury charges, which contained several minor factual inaccuracies, as it was not fact checked before publication. The Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan felt that the criticism of the Montgomery police in the ad reflected poorly on him, even though he is not mentioned by name in the ad, and filed a libel action against both the New York Times and the four African American ministers who endorsed the ad. The Court’s majority opinion held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials, with the only exception being when these statements are made with actual malice. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the New York Times.
§1.4.6.2 The “actual malice” test, a precedent set with the ruling of this case, requires that a plaintiff prove that the defamatory statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
§1.4.7 Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (1972)
§1.4.7.1 This is where Mary Alice Firestone and Russel A. Firestone had divorce proceedings. Mary Firestone (the petitioner) filed for divorce against Russell Firestone (the respondent) who submitted a counterclaim for divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty and adultery. The judge granted the divorce but did not find Mary Firestone guilty of adultery.
§1.4.8 Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 770.01-770.02 (1963).
§1.4.8.1 §§ 770.01: This states that before any civil action is brought against a publication/broadcast for libel or slander, a plaintiff must provide a written notice to the defendant that the specific statements in questions are allegedly false and defamatory. This is required to be done at least five days before instituting any civil action for libel or slander.
§1.4.8.2 Subsection One of 770.02: This states that, during the trial, the plaintiff shall recover only actual damages if: 1) The article/broadcast in question was published in good faith; 2) Its falsity was due to an honest mistake of facts; 3) There were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article/broadcast were true; and 4) That within the period of time specified in subsection (2) (see §1.4.9.2.1), a full and fair correction/apology/retraction was published in the same/corresponding issue of the newspaper/periodical in which said article appeared and is in a conspicuous place or in the case of a broadcast, the correct/apology/retraction was broadcast at a comparable time, then the plaintiff in such case shall recover only actual damages.
§1.4.8.3 Subsection Two of 770.02: This states that a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction shall be made as follows: A) In the case of a broadcast or a daily or weekly newspaper/periodical, within ten days after the notice was served; B) In the case of a newspaper/periodical published semi monthly, within twenty days after the notice was served; C) In the case of a newspaper/periodical published monthly, within forty-five days after the notice was served; and D) In the case of a newspaper/periodical published less frequently than monthly, in the next issue, provided notice is served no later than forty-five days prior to such publication.
§1.5.1 The Court’s majority opinion states that the actual malice standard set in place by, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which bars media liability for defamation of a public figure without proof that the defamatory statements were published with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth, did not apply to the facts of this case for two reasons. The first reason being that, according to the definition of a public figure set in place by Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc.,418 U.S. 323 (1974), Mary Firestone was not considered a public figure because she did not occupy any special prominence in the affairs of society nor had she been thrust to the forefront of particular public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. The second reason being that the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) rule doesn’t automatically extend to all reports of judicial proceedings regardless of whether the plaintiff in such proceedings is a public figure who might be assumed to have voluntarily exposed himself to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehood, as set in Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc.,418 U.S. 323 (1974). The Court held that there is no substantial reason why someone involved in litigation should forfeit that degree of protection by simply being drawn into a courtroom.
§1.5.2 The Court also held that there was never any finding made by the divorce court that Mary Firestone was guilty of adultery as the Time’s had reported. The Time’s claimed that it faithfully reproduced the precise meaning of the divorce judgment, though this contention was rejected.
§1.5.3 The Court, once again referencing Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc.,418 U.S. 323 (1974), states that this case imposes the constitutional limitations that 1) compensatory awards be supported by competent evidence concerning the injury and 2) liability cannot be imposed without fault. The Court recognizes that since Florida permits damages awards in defamation actions based on elements other than injury to reputation, and there was enough evidence to permit the jury to assess the injury, the first of these limitations was met. However, there was no finding of fault on the part of the Time’s publication of defamatory material, which means that the second limitation, imposed by Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc.,418 U.S. 323 (1974), was not met. The Court states that because the court failed to submit the question of fault to the jury, none of the Florida courts determined that the Time’s was at fault.
§1.6.1 Majority Opinion: The Court’s majority opinion was held by Justice Rehnquist, and was joined by Justice Powell, Justice Blackmun, Justice White, Justice Stewart, and Justice Burger. Justice Rehnquist recognized that 1) no statement was ever made by the divorce court stating that Firestone was guilty of adultery; and 2) the Time’s contended that it faithfully reproduced the precise meaning of the divorce judgment and that the article was accurate, which was rejected by the jury. Justice Rehnquist argued that for the article to have been accurate, the divorce had to have been based on a finding that Mary Firestone had committed extreme cruelty towards her husband and had been guilty of adultery, which is what was reported in the Time’s article. The Court also recognizes that while the grounds for divorce relied on a “lack of domestication of both parties” which was not one of the grounds for divorce in Florida, and that the Time’s could argue the divorce proceedings were unclear, the items reported should be established as conceivable and factually correct, especially if they can be damaging to one’s reputation. The Court also diminishes the plaintiff’s argument that Firestone was a public figure and had to prove actual malice. Therefore, in a 6-2 vote, the Court’s majority opinion held that the actual malice standard for media reports on public figures did not apply to this case because Firestone was not a public figure as defined by prior precedents. The Court also held that the Florida court’s judgment in favor of Firestone was invalid because the court awarded damages without determining fault.
§1.6.2 Dissenting Opinion 1: The Court’s first dissenting opinion was held by Justice Brennan. In this dissenting opinion, Justice Brennan recognizes that under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (See §1.4.6), liability for defamation of a public official may not be imposed in the absence of proof of actual malice on the part of the person making the erroneous statement. He argues that there has to be room for misstatement of fact, as well as misjudgement, if the press and others are to function as critical agencies in our democracy concerning courts as for all other instruments of government. For such reasons, Justice Brennan then points out that the contempt power may not be used to punish the reporting of judicial proceedings merely because a reporter "missed the essential point in a trial or failed to summarize the issues to accord with the views of the judge who sat on the case." Furthermore, what a state cannot constitutionally bring about by means of a criminal statute, is likewise beyond the reach of its civil law of libel. He also recognizes that the First Amendment protects from defamation liability per a margin for error that ensures the avoidance of crippling press censorship in the field of reporting on public judicial affairs. Therefore, Justice Brennan holds that the actual malice standard set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (See §1.4.6), must be met in order to justify the imposition of liability in these circumstances.
§1.6.3 Dissenting Opinion 2: The Court’s second dissenting opinion was held by Justice Marshall. In this dissenting opinion, Justice Marshall agreed with the Supreme Court of Florida that the “actual malice” standard, set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (See §1.4.6), does not apply to this case. However, he argued that Mary Alice Firestone is considered to be a public figure based on the meaning determined in prior decisions, such as Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (See §1.4.5) and Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) (See §1.4.4). He states that the defamation, which is the subject of the lawsuit, is not what first brought Firestone to the public’s attention. He points out that 1) Firestone was a prominent figure of Palm Beach Society and an active member of the sporting set whose activities predictably attracted the attention of a sizable portion of the public; 2) The Firestones’ marriage difficulties were well known and the lawsuit became a “cause celebre” in social circles across the country; 3) The divorce proceedings attracted national news coverage, such as 43 articles in the Miami Herald and 45 articles in the Palm Beach Post and Palm Beach Times; and 4) Firestone held several press conferences during the proceedings. Considering all of these facts, he concludes that Firestone was a public figure for the purposes of reports on the judicial proceedings that she initiated. Therefore, as a public figure, Firestone must demonstrate that the report in question was published with actual malice. Justice Marshall’s dissenting opinion holds that the Firestone divorce case was unquestionably newsworthy, but the reports were not constitutionally protected as being matters of real public or general concern.
§1.6.4 Concurring Opinion: The Court’s concurring opinion was held by Justice Powell and was joined by Justice Stewart. Justice Powell agreed there was substantial evidence that the plaintiff exercised considerable care in checking the accuracy of the story prior to its publication. The article appeared in the Milestone section of the magazine and went to press the day after the decision was announced. The Time, Inc.’s editorial staff received tips from 4 sources (See §1.3.1) that the divorce was granted because Mary Firestone was cruel and adulterous. The senior editor testified at trial that no member of the New York editorial staff had actually read the Circuit Court’s opinion, believing that their sources (some of which were from other bureau’s of Time, Inc.) had read the Court’s opinion. Justice Powell also recognizes that the Circuit Court’s opinion was very vague. Justice Powell argues that there was substantial evidence in support of Time’s defense that it wasn’t guilty of actionable negligence, and that the jury who assessed liability should have weighed these factors and this evidence before reaching a judgment. Justice Powell also argues that based on testimony of the editorial staff and the stringer (one of their sources) honestly believed the article to be true before publication. Thus, Justice Powell concurs with Justice Marshall’s dissenting opinion that unless there is some proof of finding fault other than that given by the Supreme Court of Florida, there can be no liability.
§1.7.1 I think that the second dissenting opinion, held by Justice Marshall, was rhetorically stronger than the other opinions due to its examination of Mary Firestone which concludes that she is a public figure, which directly contradicts the Court’s majority opinion about Mrs. Firestone status, and is backed up with sufficient evidence to prove why this conclusion was made.
§1.7.1.1 Justice Marshall immediately opens his dissent by stating that this case is not what brought Firestone to the public’s attention. He then goes on to describe all of the ways that she had been in the public’s attention prior to the defamation and the lawsuit. He states that she was “prominent among the 400 of Palm Beach society and an active member of the sporting set whose activities predictably attracted the attention of a sizable portion of the public. He then points out that she appeared in the press so frequently, that she subscribed to a press-clipping service. He then pointed out the marital difficulties of Mr. and Mrs. Firestone were well known and the lawsuit “became a “cause celebre” in social circles across the country. He even describes how the 17-month trial attracted national news coverage, which included 43 articles in the Miami Herald and 45 articles in the Palm Beach Post and Palm Beach Times. Firestone even held press conferences during the proceedings. According to the definition that the Court’s majority opinion provided from Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), Firestone fif occupy special prominence in the affairs of society and had been thrust to the forefront of particular public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Thus, Mary Firestone is a public figure and should have been considered as such during this case, which, according to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), would have required her to prove that there was actual malice. These facts also show that Mrs. Firestone voluntarily exposed herself to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehood, which once more contradicts what the Court’s majority opinion states.
§1.7.2 The second dissenting opinion and the majority opinion mainly differ on their interpretations of Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), but the second dissenting opinion seems rhetorically stronger from the opening statement through the end. He combines his definition of Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) with his evidence on how Firestone is a public figure, to argue why she should have to prove actual malice as set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
§1.7.2.1 Justice Marshall then attacks the majority opinions definition of Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). He claims that the Court attributes to the term "public controversy" used in Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) resurrects the precise di"culties that he thought Gertz was designed to avoid. He then begins to explain how if Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) is to have any meaning at all, the focus of analysis must be on the actions of the individual, and the degree of public attention that had already developed, or that could have been anticipated, before the report in question. Under this approach, the class of public figures must include an individual like Mrs. Firestone, who acquired a social prominence that could be expected to attract public attention, initiated a lawsuit that predictably attracted more public attention, and held press conferences in the course of and in regard to the lawsuit. I would hold that, for purposes of this case, Mrs. Firestone is a public figure who must demonstrate that the report in question was published with "actual malice" -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
Comments